You can read minds? Will you be applying, yourself?Your "offer" is not genuine and not of interest.
You can read minds? Will you be applying, yourself?Your "offer" is not genuine and not of interest.
You can read minds? Will you be applying, yourself?
I'm not on trial to answer your questions.
I suggest you try a more productive approach.
It is my opinion your offer is not genuine.
And it is a fact that it doesn't interest me.
Are you now claiming that you do have the % of female applicants? Why could you not simply have said 'I have this number', rather than going round the houses trying to avoid answering my question about why you didn't work this out for yourself?So, again, why do you assume I did not calculate what you are demanding? And why do you think what you think I calculated or not matters to proposing the idea of seeing interesting data?
What % of the applicants have been female? Interesting question. Seems unnecessarily difficult to get a numeric answer.
*sigh*I'm not on trial to answer your questions.
I suggest you try a more productive approach.
It is my opinion your offer is not genuine.
And it is a fact that it doesn't interest me.
O....K.
Could you explain to us what a more productive approach would be?
How can we persuade you that our offers are genuine?
What, exactly, are you interested in discussing?
(Could someone re-post these questions? T'ai Chi pretends to have me on ignore. A couple of times should do it.)
That's the nice thing about opinions. They don't have to have any relation to reality.It is my opinion your offer is not genuine.
Just curious: is there anything at all that you will go on record as actually being interested in? Enough, say, to actually engage in 2-way conversation about it, giving your own opinions as well as soliciting and reacting to those of others? Just curious...And it is a fact that it doesn't interest me.
But I asked so nicely.I'm not on trial to answer your questions.
I suggest you try a more productive approach.
I'm not interested in every single test, only the ones that are statistical in nature, and not just JREF, but any skeptical organization that does similar tests.
Surely, if there are tests that are statistical in nature, on dowsing, it seems reasonable to look into the possibility of combining their data. And if not appropriate, then no biggie, don't do it. But seeing the data, and calculating descriptive statistics are what is important.
I'd like to see it.I'm prepared to quote a hard statistic to you, Justin. Are you prepared to receive it?
I'm prepared to quote a hard statistic to you, Justin. Are you prepared to receive it?
I'm prepared to quote a hard statistic to you, Justin. Are you prepared to receive it?
Justin has posted in four different threads since I posted this message, but has not posted here again. I wonder why that is.
So have you begun to collate the 18 months worth of 141 applications to the JREF Challenge in order to get an idea of the type of data you are proposing would be interesting to analyse?<snip>
You've mentioned that already, but you still haven't shown that. If you are interested in other hypothetical data sets, then you are warmly encouraged to do some work and examine those. For those that want to examine data from tests from skeptical organizations, then examining data from tests from skeptical organizations is the way to go, Mercy.
"Gr8wight",
You are free to post anything you'd like, as you've always been.
Engage Pedantic Mode:Now you feign disinterest in the only hard statistic that can confidently be quoted for the JREF challenge.
Engage Pedantic Mode:
Technically, you want "uninterest" rather than "disinterest" there.
Pedantic Mode disengaged.
![]()
So have you even attempted to review the Challenge entry emails to determine if you CAN derive any interesting statistics from them?I'm not on trial here. Your demands are ignored.
If you aren't willing to think how test results relate more to science than Kramer's emails, I cannot help you.